Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2308 of 2023 Revisionist :- Rajesh Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Aditya Vardhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State are present.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC Chitrakoot in S.T. No.425 of 2021 (State vs. Pancham Lal) crime no.94 of 2021 U/s 286, 307 IPC, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the application U/s 319 Cr.P.C. filed by complainant/ prosecution to summon the opposite party no.2 for trial with co-accused.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that FIR of this case was lodged by the revisionist and opposite party no.2 Munnu alias Ramsajeevan was named in the FIR with the role of firing on Ramesh the brother of the complainant. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation properly and has recorded the statements of witnesses on his own wishes. He exonerated the named accused of the FIR and submitted the charge-sheet against Pancham Lal on the basis of statement of witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which the role of firing has been assigned to Pancham Lal. During trial, the complainant was examined as P.W.-1. In his statement before the trial court, the complainant has reiterated the version of the FIR and has implicated the opposite party no.2 Munnu alias Ramsajeevan and has assigned the role of firing to him. Thereafter an application U/s 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant/ prosecution to summon the named accused of the FIR Munnu alias Ramsajeevan but the trial court has rejected this application holding that the injured in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned the role of firing to Pancham Lal, so there is no sufficient evidence on record. The learned counsel further contended that after passing the impugned order, the injured has been examined by the prosecution.
Learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as there is no sufficient evidence on record, as required for exercising the powers U/s 319 Cr.P.C.
It is undisputed that opposite party no.2 Munnu alias Ramsajeevan is named in the FIR and complainant has assigned the role of firing to them but during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement injured Ramesh and according to his statement the shot was fired by Pancham Lal and not by opposite party no.2. On this evidence the Investigating Officer has exonerated the named accused Munnu alias Ramsajeevan and submitted charge-sheet against Pancham Lal. The application U/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved after recording the statement of complainant before the trial court. His statement is reiteration of the allegations of the FIR.
It is settled law that powers U/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power and which should be exercised sparingly for sufficient evidence only. At the stage when application U/s 319 Cr.P.C. was moved there was only statement of complainant. There is also an injured witness, this witness was not examined till then. The standard of evidence required for exercising powers U/s 319 Cr.P.C. is more than that of prima-facie case. From the analysis of the material on record, it appears that at the stage of passing the impugned order, there was no sufficient evidence on record so the impugned order is not sustainable.
It also appears that the prosecution has moved the application at an early stage just after recording the statement of complainant and till then most important witness the injured was not examined. The prosecution should have waited for deposition of the injured witness. According to statement made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the injured has been examined during trial, so the prosecution may be at liberty to file a fresh application.
Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. However the prosecution may be at liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court. If any such application is filed, the learned trial court shall decide it in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023 C. MANI